Who It’s For
People who like irreverence in general, but also for rational people capable of maintaining some level of objectivity. Being smart and insightful won’t help you here. You have to be willing to consider the possibility that MAYBE...
"Most women can’t invent for shit!" - Sum Dum Guy
Which is insulting, offensive, misogynist bullshit. Yeah, yeah. Sure it is. Nobody likes the idea. It looks bad in track pants and strangles puppies.
But is it true?
Even people I respect may lose control of their emotions. Objectivity goes out the window. For some reason, otherwise intelligent, rational men are suddenly unable to entertain a surprising idea.
Which means while you stay mired in the past, I get to forge ahead into the future. Not because I'm better or smarter or cooler than others, but because I'm examining the evidence while you comfort yourself with twiddling your thumbs as the world passes you by.
The people you respect begin to dismiss you because you simply can't keep up with the times.
If you encounter a woman who might be borrowing some jokes, it might not because she's too lazy to come up with her own.
Even if it's a person you trusted and believed was funny, insightful, and extraordinary, she might actually be incapable of inventing humor, insight, or important ideas on her own.
The unquestioned assumption I'm challenging is that women can innovate just as well as men, if they want to. Unless they're incapable, of course.
I believe there's good reason to blame biology... not society. And there's good reason to treat claims of innovation as extraordinary... when it comes from a certain group of heavily defended people.
 |
| At which point, I hadn't asserted this hypothesis. Just doubts. |
 |
| But Who Will Come To MY Defense? |
I was accused of justification? Of what? Accused of being trapped by dogma? To ask a question requires being trapped in dogma.
And if you doubt the Christians, to admit ignorance (agnostic means "I don't know") is portrayed as arrogance, of course.
And there were half a dozen other things by those who dogpiled on demanding evidence because I promised to look into the examples provided.
 |
| Does This Makeup Make My Ass Look Fat? |
But This is Twitter 101
I didn't even say "Your friend isn't funny." Neither did she claim she was. Nor that she came up with the joke. Just that it was an obvious observation. I'll let you be the judge:
From Buzzfeed's 36 Questions Women Have For Men: A girl wearing makeup asks, "Why do you think women that women that wear makeup are false advertising? We can say the same thing about your dick size."
What's the obvious joke here? After watching several videos, nobody had come up with this except Vernaculis:
"Excuse me. I never put makeup on my dick, ma'am. Nope. Not even a layer of foundation. I'm serious."
Pretty funny, right? Good execution. But was it obvious?
If you ask me, it's a little uncharacteristic of Vernaculis to make a joke instead of actually addressing the substance of her point about false advertising.
I hoped he would follow up the joke with something scathing, like a comparison to men who drive fast cars, supposedly to compensate for what they lack.
You can't have it both ways, ladies.
Either people overcompensate or they don't
Are women compensating by wearing makeup? If not, how can men be compensating by driving a car they like. Which one is it?
I know. It's hard to give up the pleasure of bashing men who don't deserve it. But at least it allows you to save face.
Let me guess which choice you'll make. Hating men excuses all your actions. There's no giving that up. You'd rather hang onto hate than save yourself from humiliation. It's the dynamic that allows male hatred to continue.
Then again, men are responsible for wars. Except it would be abhorrent to say that Jews are responsible for all wars. I guess that means men are more hated than the Jews in today's society. Good luck explaining that to the Jews, though. They've never stopped playing the victim, since World War II.
 |
| I Started Noticing Something Suspicious These Accomplished Women Had In Common But How Could I Ever Confirm My Suspicions? |
Blame Is A Standard-Issue Ego Defense Mechanism
It's why they have to tell you NOT TO KILL THE MESSENGER.
Look on the bright side. Maybe you suck at life. You may have been born unfunny, ugly, humorless and inferior and genetically predestined to be a loser until you inevitably die. Is that so bad?
So cheer up. Because you're bumming out the rest of us.
Never harsh my buzz.
Surely you wouldn't claim that ONLY men could possibly have something to hide, you secretive, mysterious person. Not when you're rockin' the Napoleon Dynamite chic. It's just us girls here.
At any rate, the foundation of her argument was something people would probably feel was worth addressing, even if serious pseudo-intellectuals don't bother.
Instead, he's resorted to public ridicule. It does save time. And thinking is super hard.
So imagine my delight when we got yet another chance! Yes, reliable Shoe0nHead chimed in about 4 days after Vernaculis. Maybe she'd tear a hole in this Buzzfeeder's argument and protect my penis from any more shame than usual.
Again, you're judging for yourself. I will say NOTHING. Because as Shoe says, "People like to have evidence."
Not so sure they wouldn't rather have ignorance, since it confirms their biases, but we'll leave it at that.
As you know if you've set foot in this society for a day, men are called upon to prove or at least substantiate the things they dare to say. Women do not. Because there's no daring in it. No accountability.
They possess the very vaginas upon which society depends for its production of soldiers and more vaginas, if you must know. And men don't.
I'm saying nothing other than what I've said, to those who insist on asking "Are you saying X?"
Christopher Hitchens notoriously brought up in 2007 that women aren't funny. It's extraordinary when they are, but it happens. Making funny women all the more extraordinary. And possibly lesbians. What higher compliment could a man give?
Hitchens said it. Not me.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, as Carl Sagan pointed out. Is there any?
We've seen Shoe appear on a number of livestreams, where she sits quietly for hours saying nothing much except to complain and ridicule. Nothing said is particularly funny. Not off-the-cuff. Nothing like you'd expect as a fan of her videos.
Elevating a complaint to a good joke takes wit, experience, or effort. Sometimes all three. Which is why some people, like Carlos Mencia and Amy Schumer, are accused of lifting material from others. An accusation which has been quite damaging to Mencia's career.
In fact, Schumer took this accusation MORE seriously than the date rape she seems to describe at an event to applause and a standing ovation. By 1990's standards, what she described was called date rape. Particularly if a man had done it. Or when Bill Cosby might have done it.
But when Amy Schumer publicly admits to having sex with guy who's too drunk to consent (by the standards when parachute pants were all the rage), she gets more applause than Tim Hunt's off-the cuff remark that offended a lying feminist and led to a Nobe Prize winner stepping down from his career.
Given the rabid response to female pandering I've been hearing all my life ("Girl Power!" ..."Woo!), I suspect she got more applause than she gets in her stand-up comedy bits. Yet another symptom of a sick society, if you ask me.
And more evidence that women aren't funny, even if their whole job is based on being funny. It's almost like a fashion model doesn't know fashion .Or a swimsuit model didn't swim. Or a wide receiver who likes to be on top.
In the tweets she must have subsequently deleted after I challenged her on them, Shoe didn't even claim she came up with this joke on her own. Just said it was an obvious observation. Much as Vernaculis had said months earlier in a tweet which has gone conspicuously missing ever since.
Edit: Meaning maybe he deletes tweets, too. Even curiouser.
It seems some anti-feminists are almost as petty as the feminists.
Yes, I confess: I said "mean things" to a girl on the internet. Things that got me blocked by one of the most popular anti-feminists.
If I haven't made a positive claim, then of course there's nothing to justify.
(Neuro-plasticity of youth my aching ass.)
Typical of arguments about the existence of God. People assume there's a God. An atheist says, "I'm not so sure about that." And the believer says "Look! He admits to his blasphemy! Burn the heretic. He says there's no God."
Or at least that's what they used to say.
Now, of course, women are God. In that they're treated as infallible, even by people who'd like you to believe they hold the torch of reason in a world of simple-minded buffoons.
GO NO FARTHER: (Or is it further?) Who It’s Not For:
Feminists, for starters. Whether you’re a man or a woman, a prerequisite of feminism is you can't reason your way out of a paper bag. If you’re infected by this bigoted ideology, and STILL haven't seen the blatant hypocrisy at this point, then you obviously don't care that you’re the one insulting women.
You're a stupid internet buffoon and I hold the torch of reason.
Women are all perfect, competent, brilliant creatures who are incapable of fault.
 |
| At least... uh... Women are equal to men! Men Are Pigs! |
Not For Religious Nutters: Not all religious folks are anti-science, you silly atheists. Nor are they incapable of short bursts of objectivity under brief, clinically controlled conditions. The scientific revolution depends on this fact.
Isaac Newton put aside his alchemy and his love for Jesus long enough to kind of invent physics and come up with calculus.
Scientists who worship on Sundays and crack open nature’s mysteries on Mondays do tend to compartmentalize, I find. Just because you believe there’s a creator who designed the world and has a purpose for you doesn’t mean you’re not curious about what nature reveals about His intentions.
And for you religious nuts, Science and innovation doesn’t require worshipping Satan, no matter what you heard from the fella passing the collection plate.
 |
| Just because I think believers have rocks in their heads doesn't make it true. |
Who Should Pay Attention
Hail Satan! You decided to read further.
- People who have genuine curiosity about the world. Who like taking things apart to see how things work.
- Those whose profits and losses depend on innovation.
- Those who finance and insure innovative companies. Especially when your money's on the line.
- Investors who own any interest in insurers, banking, venture capital funds, those who somehow own a piece of them, including anyone with a pension or index fund, or who might be perpendicularly invested in the success of companies making incredibly stupid hiring decisions.
Thinking of sinking your own, personal, hard-earned Venture capital into an all-girl team who have the next hot start-up idea... but no nuts and bolts are assembled? Then this might just save you a small fortune.
Be Passionately Curious: Computing pioneer Grace Hopper disassembled clocks as a child before programming computers for the U.S. Navy, creating a computer programming language and the world’s first code compiler.
Before Grace Hopper came along, you had to write in machine code. (And you thought you were hot shit for using assembly language.)
Before He Ripped Off Many of His Theories From Others, Einstein was passionately curious. He's sort of the Carlos Mencia of theoretical physics.
 |
| What Today's Carlos Mencia Looks Like |
Why Should You Care
Like anyone else, girls and women thrive in the proper environment. One which leverages their own particular strengths. Since this varies on a case-by-case basis, and by gender, then any significant differences between the sexes should be noted before you arbitrarily decide to push for "more women in technology fields", for example, or closing the loophole regarding sex discrimination illegal in private colleges.
Yes, companies have gone out of business powered by the girl-power foolishness, when taken to an extreme. Maybe a good idea: All female classroom. Almost certainly a bad idea: All-female office.
Which is highly offensive to some, but not necessarily wrong. All male offices did exist at one time. Remarkably, civilization didn't collapse, even while lots companies failed. They still do.
All-female companies exhibit exactly the kinds of problems you'd expect if you've ever hired a woman upon whom your livelihood depends. You've probably noticed she behaves and performs very different than the male employees.
If you tell me a woman can't thrive in an industry designed for men, I can use your same logic to say a boy can't thrive in a school system designed for girls.
In the United States, men worked more hours and more days than women did, even at the same, full-time jobs, even when you make damn sure not to let maternity leave count against women in the data.
For lots of reasons, they just don't show up to the job for as many hours as men. If you paid women the same amount as men who do show up for work, then employers would be forced to stop hiring women or shut their doors.
Since they're not allowed to stop hiring women, you'd almost immediately shut down every company with the stroke of a pen.
Need I say it? That hurts women.
Just because female-owned companies have a higher chance of success, according to the Small Business Administration, (which might have something to do with their chances of getting financial help early and often) doesn't automatically make women ideal employees, students, or political candidates.
Or even the best business owners, judging by the male dominance of the most successful businesses.
We're much more likely to help women, and give them a chance, but NOT necessarily because it's a good idea.
If you want phenomenal success, high risks managed competently and objectively and incredibly high rewards in the long term, you're significantly less likely to get it from a female-owned business, or a business which bows fashionable feminist rhetoric.
According to Ruchika Tulshyan, women can be nastier bullies than men at the workplace.
If the profits in your pocket depend on your department’s or company’s ability to solve problems in new ways (innovate), then you MIGHT want to make sure your team actually comes equipped with this capability.
We must dare to test the idea that...
MAYBE Innovation isn’t standard equipment.
Not only is it rare in men, it's all the more rare in women, if Nobel Prizes are any indication. Men beat women in every single category for 114 years.
Women make up 17% of Billionaires. If you don't pay a capable woman what she's worth, she can easily take her skills elsewhere. I can tell you "girly" just isn't a word I'd use to describe ANY self-made billionaires.
The assumption is that the cards are stacked against women because anything else is heresy.
But if we left such sacred cows alone, those wacky planets and stars would still be mounted on their crystal spheres in the heavens, or so we'd believe.
Story of Discovery
Years ago, (which is centuries in social media time), a female New Caldinian crow in captivity did something nobody showed her how to do, using a material which doesn’t occur in nature. She bent a piece of wire into a hook to get some food on camera.
What was cool about it...
This Type Of Behavior Is What I Call INNOVATION
If you still-frame this video in the right place, this crow looks like it’s puking after a hard night of partying. (From anecdotal experience, that seems to be something men and women appear to do about equally well.)
It’s not even a raven, man. It’s just a crow! How can a female crow perform the kind of mental feat that's not demonstrated by nearly as many women as men? (Or MIT graduates, either.)
Obviously you can teach a crow to bend a wire. But can a crow teach itself? Not only is the answer is “yes”, but in further experiments, crows have shown the ability to solve multi-stage puzzles including tests which require a fundamental understanding the natural properties of water displacement, flotation, and density.
And pigeons were able to identify impressionist painters better than first-year female art students.
 |
| See? It's proof that women are dumber than stupid animals! (Except those animals beat men, too.) |
The villagers would be after me with torches! (Yes, I mean feminists.)
But it’s also true of men. Never mind, though. I’ve compared women to apes and, if tomorrow’s strawmen attacks can be believed:
I’m A Misogynist Who Believes Women Have Bird Brains
At least according to tomorrow’s headlines. Which is not only wrong, but it’s quite possibly insulting to female birds!
Birds are believed to be descended from intelligent dinosaurs. It's possible they have a mature and vastly more ancient kind of intelligence than us rock-tossing apes descended from some kind of insect-eating shrew-like animal.
 |
| Your Great-Great-Great...Great Grandma eats BUGS |
But I did have some doubts about whether any women were capable of the kind of innovation this crow had demonstrated.
These are always things which defy our lazy human intuition. Mammals have relatively new brains compared to the types of animals who dominated the planet for hundreds of millions of years. Lots of things trip us up.
Like a ship made of concrete, but those nutty innovators made a fleet of 24 of them, anyway. (Because America was running short of steel at the time.)
 |
| The McCloskey Ships Of World War II |
You can see two of them, still afloat in Newport,Oregon if you don't believe me.
[ Bear in mind that concrete ships are sexist. Concrete ships are racist. And you have to point it all out. - Sincerely, Radical Intersectional Feminism ]
We're hard-wired with at least 170 cognitive biases and 100 known logical fallacies.
I’ve seen groups of high school students baffled by incredibly simple tasks. Even MIT Graduates can’t wire a lightbulb to a battery, which puts them at least 136 years behind the state-of-the art, right?
Actually, that’s being nice. That's only if they could MAKE a lightbulb. Simply wiring up electricity to something dates back to ancient Iraq. As does electro-plating.
These graduates may have degrees in this thing called “science”, but can’t seem to do simple innovation.
 |
| Mind you, some people are over-achievers. |
And even some who have:
In case you didn’t know, men out-earn women, even in the exact same full-time job. Feminists not only admit this. They won’t shut up about it. And they really shouldn’t. First, because it’s misleading. But unless you tell the whole story...
The Wage Gap Only Proves Women Are Worth MUCH Less Than Men
(Excluding what women earn under-the-table. As it turns out... it's a hell of a lot.)
Feminists believe women need extra help at every stage of their lives. Beyond everything else they're getting, such as public schools designed for girls, vastly more scholarships for women, quotas, laws against keeping women out of men's organizations without the corollary. Laws which give women lots of extra reproductive rights men don't have AND prevent men from having any reproductive rights or relationship rights.
From saying "hi" to getting a divorce, a man bears all the risk, responsibility, and accountability. A woman found guilty of murdering her husband may not even be held accountable.
But feminists believe women need even more help. Why would they need more help than that? Either because they're power-mad tyrants or they don't think women are worth a damn.
I believe women have proven they can more than compete with men in society. Which is why people continue to take batshit insane feminists VERY seriously.
 |
| "Hi, um. World governments? Yeah. Boys said mean things to me on the internet. Can you make them stop?" |
The fact that women spend much more money than men and control household spending, are more likely to walk away from a relationship with the house, kids and car proves...
There's Also That There Spending Gap You Never Hear About
The amount of money women are able to control, and spend on themselves (even correcting for what they spend on others) shows
women are by the top-earners in society despite earning less in the workforce.
Women just earn their money a little differently than men. And I don't just mean blowjobs, break-ins and burglary. I mean they do what comes naturally: They take it by force.
while earning so much less than men, well it’s hard to then hear about this “huge” wage gap and conclude anything other than that...
The Average Woman’s Primary Source of Income Is Still Prostitution
Of the women who work full time (50 thousand women vs. 67 thousand men), they only work enough to earn 78 cents on the dollar. For every dollar a man makes, a woman earns just 57 cents.
But despite working about half as much as a men, women still spend 75 cents of every dollar they both earn.
If you factor in the $57 billion dollar sex industry,
If only they’d kept quiet about the so-called wage gap, I’d have never been able to say it.
And to be really charitable, I’ll presume men value the greater share of domestic work a woman provides. Taking care of the kids is a job so easy the average woman would rather stay at home collecting maternity leave than go to work.
The problem is this makes me more charitable to men, too. And saying anything nice about men of course hurts women. Obviously. (This is only obvious only to feminists.)
To more than balance this out, they’re worth quite a lot to their boyfriends and husbands, which is a topic for another time, perhaps.
What feminists don’t admit is men work much longer hours than women. The more you work, the better you know your job, which makes you worth more per hour than the person who doesn’t show up for as much overtime, working weekends, holidays, etc.
Even in the exact same job. The average man with 10 years of experience at a job has more hours of experience than the average woman with 12 years of experience at the same job.
Which more than explains away the 3% of the wage gap that’s not explained by the greater number of hours men work per year.
Long story short, there is no per-hour wage gap on the basis of sex. Because that’s already illegal.
Apparently you don’t need more than a few tweets to kick the ass of a guy who writes about sex discrimination in private colleges. (He wrote the book on why it’s hard for educated women to find dates.)
So based on this, I feel perfectly comfortable calling myself a scientist of sorts, despite having a high school education.
I’ll admit he’s a pretty smart guy. And he fights a fair fight. But didn’t see that he was advocating for more of the exact same sexism that’s made it more difficult for men to get into colleges, graduate, and get jobs.
And men still out-earn women because they compensate by working harder than women.
It’s hard not to point out more of the ways in which women are dragging society down under misandrist policies.
Private colleges should end sex discrimination against women (by discriminating against men)
Employers should end sex discrimination by discriminating based on sex
That’s Why You Should Listen To Me
Technically, you should still test out what I’m saying and see for yourself.
Kind of like you should double-check with the team that replicated the Large Hadron Collider’s results.
Ahem. Actually, there’s not a second collider, and won’t be anytime soon. So we’re sorta taking their word for it. A bit like the climate change thing, nobody double-checked because a consensus of scientists said X. (Okay, but how do YOU know they did? Did you CHECK?)
Seriously... Do You Even Science, Bro?
Armed with two seasons of Cosmos training, I set off to discover the reasons why there aren’t more female programmers, Nobel Prize winners and such.
With good reason. I checked my pockets and I don’t have billions of dollars. Not ON me.
So I have to make do with a cheap internet connection, a computer, and access to trillions of dollars of technology wired up to the web.
(Never thought about it that way, huh?)
Taking a break from posting pictures of pussy cats (or whatever sounds relatable), I decided...
To Boldly Go Where No Man (Or Woman) Has Gone Before
 |
No. Not to an Andy Dick cosplay convention.
|
Since men have been virtually everywhere, including the depths of the ocean, orbital space, the tops of mountains, I had to go somewhere else.
To summit Mount Everest, there are only a few routes. But for obvious reasons, nobody goes between those routes. You’d be where nobody’s ever been, but you also wouldn’t reach the summit.
 |
| Enjoy this scenic hike. And try not to die. |
Death-defying feats are only one barrier. Like being trapped a room with 4 walls, our paths to discovery are blocked in more than one direction.
Some conquer their fear of death, but never conquer their fear of other taboos. They don’t question authority, such as things “everybody knows”, like the legal basis of government itself.
 |
| Oh, this was SO illegal at the time. You don't even KNOW. I can't EVEN. |
They don’t question competence of a person injecting this year’s flu vaccine in their arm. Here’s someone who’s going to stab you with a metal shaft and inject you with God-knows-what.
 |
| "Trust me. I think I know what I'm doing." - Someone you've never met |
Quite Frankly, All You Know For Sure Is It Hurts
I’ve and asked whether they'd asked for the credentials of the person who'd issued theirs. The answer was not even remotely satisfactory.
 |
| "Not so fast. I'll need to see some ID before accepting this degree." |
From the publicly available information, you couldn't easily verify they'd actually earned those accolades themselves.
Yes, they'd been credited with creating important, world-changing innovations by coming up with their own ideas. But did they?
And the reason I asked is because of this woman:
 |
| Who Has Since Blocked Me On Twitter For Daring To Question Whether She Made Up A Certain Joke Herself |
It seems +Shoe0nHead made a very similar joke to one recorded by another person just 4 days earlier. She dismissed it as obvious, then said I wasn't making sense, then deleted those tweets, deleted my YouTube comment on the relevant video while the guy who made the joke automatically rushed to her defense and started using just about every dirty pseudo intellectual tactic he says not to use in this video.
+Vernaculis knows better.
It's all consistent with feminist behavior but something you never expect from an anti-feminist. Actually, a lot of her behavior is more consistent with feminists than the anti-feminists I usually encounter.
1) Just as we take things on faith, so does everyone else. It’s efficient, but not always effective.
2) We also rush to correct people who disagree with us, without ever having seriously questioned our own assumptions.
It’s the blind leading the blind.
(And it’s the also blind beating up the guy who can see.)
It’s no wonder MIT students can’t connect a power cell to a lightbulb.
"It’s not what you don't know. It’s what you think you know that ain’t so." (I just stole that quote without citing the source to make myself sound smart and inventive.)
Because Good Artists Copy, Great Artists Steal. - Jonathan Schwartz
Humans feel like they're better than crows and chimps. We thins our memory is better than it is. We credit ourselves with better awareness and attention than we have. All of which makes us easy victims for pick-pockets and con artists.
We assume our future will be better than our past, and that conditions will obviously improve for us, despite all evidence to the contrary, leaving us without savings in old age.
But before we can improve our own dismal odds in life, let's take some undeserving bitches down.
But Marie Curie Invented Radiation... Or Something
Not quite. The radiation was already there to be discovered. And so was the idea of radiation ready to be proved. Radiation wasn't "her idea."
What I learned from PBS is this: we already knew about infra-red radiation, for example. This dude right here? His thermometers give Marie Curie the middle finger.
If you wanted to dismiss her, you’d simply point out the she had help. Remember her husband? Yep. He was on Curie’s team.
You also need to understand that journalists and scientists and are playing a political game which distorts YOUR perception of reality. And mine.
Which is why Einstein can claim credit for the ideas taken from other people and almost nobody knows about it. It’s not a meritocracy. It’s a publicity-ocracy.
It’s not who you know. It’s who knows you.
Like high school, life is a popularity contest. I only wish I’d known sooner.
Throwing Marie Curie In A Trash Can?
Why would you want to dismiss Marie Curie’s amazing accomplishment? We’ll get to the real reason in a second. For the moment, let’s say it’s because it‘s just because it will piss of feminists.
That’s reason enough, isn’t it?
There’s a fundamental difference between theoretical physicists and practical physicists. Practical physicts are specialists who come up with a hypothesis to test, and come up with models which fit existing observations.
If the TV show “The Big Bang Theory” is to be believed.
“My Brain Does Algebra” Does Not Equal “My Brain Is Better Than Those Who Do Geometry”
(You can thank Temple Grandin for the observation that some folks are naturally better at Geometry, and some are naturally better at Algebra. She deserves credit.)
I’ve already been baselessly accused of thinking my stupid brain is better than women’s brains.
This predictably irrational reaction is typical of the kind of emotional responses you can expect to evoke from men when you’ve said anything at all that casts women in a less than flattering light. Even asking a question.
The pussy is on a pedestal.
Same goes for attacking God or government or anything that’s defended by faith instead of reason.
Which is why I think faith is stupid
You don’t have faith that your gas tank is full. If you intend to get where you’re going, you measure it. You don’t say “God will fill my gas tank.”
It’s equally stupid and unfair to expect and especially require women to do something they weren’t built for. Like science, technology, engineering, and math.
Very likely, you’ll have failed to notice what I didn’t say just now, so let me spell it out:
I DIDN’T SAY “NO WOMEN CAN DO SCIENCE”
I didn’t just say you were too stupid to read, either. I’m not insulting women, or you. But if a bad guy shot you through the lung, and told you he didn’t do it, you wouldn’t believe it.
So let me prove there’s no hole in your lung. In other words, that I still haven’t insulted you or
Not even when I call them “all prostitutes”. (Which I haven’t done and won’t do.) But just like magic, you’ll swear I did. If you’re like THIS guy:
And if you misrepresent my position, you’d fall prey to a strawman fallacy. Attacking a position I never put forward. Leaving me the victor.
You wouldn’t want me to win just because you failed to defend my actual attack, right? I could be flanking or ambushing you. Your enemy would be victorious and you’d be none the wiser.
For petty reasons, eh?
I’ve dismissed each of the world religions for the same “petty reasons,” too. They requisite evidence is missing.
It's as if saying the word “Bible” proves the existence of the Christian God to a Buddhist.
Or that showing a link to the IRS Tax Code proves the code applies to a broke Frenchman held captive in Zimbabwe. (”IT APPLIZE TO EVERYONE”)
Or “A million Frenchmen can’t be wrong.”
Saying “What about Marie Curie” may prove you’ve heard of her, and the fact that you’ll defend her honor might prove something about yourself (virtue signaling), but it does absolutely nothing.
Saying "Bible" doesn't even prove you have one.
NOTHING to prove you know which beaker she personally chose to fill on Monday morning.
Even if you have a Nobel Prize, you’re arguing from authority. I can simply call upon another authority by saying “Yes, it’s true. But did you know the Swedish government revoked her prize money while she was in Europe?”
Which I just made up. But hopefully, you can see why saying “But Thor, the God of Thunder is feared by all Romans” isn’t quite enough to prove I should be quaking in my boots.
Nor is saying “Marie Curie invented Radiation... Or um... Radium?” enough to prove she didn’t simply take credit, which really is the only thing I need to say. Unless you can prove she was the brains of the operation.
Given the dearth of female inventors, relatively speaking, I’d have to regard this as an extraordinary claim. One which requires extraordinary evidence.
But only if I was being reasonable.
Just because Marie Curie can do something doesn’t mean all women could, even if they wanted to.
Women have been encouraged to do lots of things they weren’t good at. Algebra. Long division. Dissecting weird-smelling frogs.
Female Disabilities
Some women can’t look at people. With good reason. They’re autistic. Or blind. Or had a stroke. Or they’re paralyzed. Or in a coma. Or very, very stupid.
Like some random person on Twitter.
Those women can’t do something. We used to call these people disabled.
“Only women can be disabled?” someone will doubtlessly object.
You’d think these were the rudiments of logical argumentation, but pseudo-intellectuals can’t seem to grasp them when they lose objectivity.
Simply invoking the name of an widely-believed Roman God does nothing prove any one person is correct that he exists.
And just because nobody has ever contradicted the ludicrous idea that “women can do anything a man can do” doesn’t make it right. Embarrassing.
Female-Specific Disabilities
Such as writing your name in the snow.
Female-Prevalent Disabilities
Innovation, building shit. Making society a better place for having been in it. (What this article's all about.)
In this case, these represent differences in the overwhelming majority of typical, basic-bitch female brains who are a dime-a-dozen and may as well be carbon copies of each other, right down to their desire to show how unique and special and individual they are.
Good luck with that.
Male-Prevalent Disabilities
Coming to a consensus. Apparently. I haven't looked into that one.
Practical physicists test those ideas to see if the model’s predictions were accurate. Sometimes at a cost of billions of dollars, like the Large Hadron Collider in Cern, France (currently under attack by religion-crazed barbarians). Cost: $13.25 billion.
It didn’t find God, but it sorta kinda found “the God particle.” Which neither a particle nor a god.
Or the Hubble Space Telescope. ($2.5 billion dollars)
There were reasons you COULD dismiss them if you took an appropriately rigorous and skeptical approach.
In the process, I realized I’d forgotten about one female inventor I highly respect, who invented this:
 |
| The Hugbox Has Become A Metaphor For Crybully Culture. The Anxiety It Relieves? NOT A Joke |
And this:
 |
| She Invented A Pen. Not the kind you write with... the kind you cattle with. |
She described a DaVinci-like ability to make pictures of machines in her mind and run them. Something great computer programmers do. An ability called “imagination” which Einstein described. Riding on a beam of light.
The ability to create and run an imagination experiment to figure things out. To formulate a hypothesis and test it. To formulate a new, previously unknown hypothesis.
Even the originators of conspiracy theories seem to be able to do this.
What seems simple isn’t always simple. MIT graduates can’t wire a lightbulb to a battery.
Eliminating False Positives
I used a method inspired by something psychiatrist Daniel Amen said. In looking for a normal brain to scan, he said most brains have risk factors for brain damage. If you want a brain you KNOW isn’t damaged for comparison, you have to scan one that has no risk factors for abnormality.
 |
You’re In Deep Trouble If You Start Out With The Wrong Brain For The Job
|
The invention of Ivory Soap was a famous accident. Customers wanted more of the soap that floats. But it only floats because a workman left the machinery on and went to lunch. Air got into the mix and he shipped it anyway.
Accidental inventions like floating soap, artificial sweetener, the weren’t the kind of invention I was looking for because you can’t depend on accidents. You want reliable producers who are enabled, encouraged and unhampereed.
I needed a way to disqualify Nobel Prize winners.
So I asked my MASSIVE Twitter following of literally hundreds of people to give me names of people who fit my criteria:
If they were one of the rare women who’d risen to fame,
Having been credited with an important accomplishment
That they decided to come up with
Without taking credit for something they didn’t do
This is something Thunderf00t did and documented when he went against prevailing wisdom, having found the explanation unsatisfactory. Thus creating a new category of explanations for explosions.
Similarly, I find it needlessly and suspiciously pandering to simply accept that women can do anything a man can do, and do it just as well or better.
Even given the historical accomplishments of a few famous women, I saw no reason to simply assume this implies that all or many or any women have the ability to perform this kind of science.
So I thought somebody who’s capable of objectivity should double check this.
But men aren’t always capable of objectivity, particularly in certain areas of life. Particularly when it comes to women or children, men instinctively protect women, even at considerable personal risk. (Contrary to flawed feminist theory.)
And since the feminist backlash is as predictable as the rising sun, in cases like this, the work can only be undertaken by someone who:
- Is willing to lose their job
- Doesn’t care if he never gets pussy again
- Is willing to die for the truth
Willing to die? Well, yes. Even writing under a pseudonym, Joseph Swetnam spent the rest of his soon to be short life running from the ever-growing reaction to his pamphlet warning men to stay away from lewd, idle women. It’s not certain how he died, but thanks to a letter from his daughter, we know when. It was the year 1621.
Only a generation after Shakespeare wrote Taming of the Shrew and Much Ado About Nothing.
Even today, men who are critical of women, female supremacy cults, and the most egregious actions of such cultists are often forced to hide their true identities.
The risks are real and substantial, even today. False accusations are quite common, and taken very seriously. Obnoxiously so. Cultists who have been successful in campaign for regulations throughout history are campaigning eliminate the right to any trial whatsoever.
And even those who defend against their false accusations may be jailed and face prison time or worse.
And that’s just for disagreeing with and/or telling the truth about false accusers, conspirators, slanderers who are seemingly protected by the state, the press, and the general public
What about someone who seeks to speak about the limits of human cognition?
They’re called racists if they mention race. Those accusations are only taken seriously when they come from white men.
They’re called sexists and misogynists and lose their jobs if they dare to joke that some women may lack any capability whatsoever.
Ironically, this only demonstrates women in general lack sufficient courage and/or compassion to speak up to protect men who tell the truth. But since men also lack courage and/or compassion to speak up for men, it doesn’t count as an ability women lack, but an ability humans lack.
But what if the ability to invent things, and come up with important new ideas is something only men can do?
Nobody needs to tell you that it’s almost true. Who are the programmers, engineers, scientists, mathematicians, technologists? Mostly men, of course.
Feminists admit this too. Which they probably shouldn’t. Because it demonstrates that women (on average) are far less capable than men at being interested in and/or capable of getting the education, getting hired, and thriving in such professions. Oops.
Well, they’re feminists, not scientists. They’re not too bright, you know.
Instead of learning science, they simply SAY they study social science. Which means as much as it means when I call myself a scientist. (Yes, there’s method to my madness.)
A lot of things have to go right in order to arrive at a new idea. You probably need a good breakfast, for example. Plenty of sleep. I can’t know what all those factors are, but maybe I can nail down one of the prerequisites.
For example, It’s very hard to innovate after you’re dead.
36 things... ideas. Each and every idea they came up with was easily de-bunked, typical, useless bullshit.
I listened to several people destroying each and every point these Buzzfeed propagandists.
No. That's not what I'm saying. Although women have perhaps expressed more than their fair share of bad ideas:
 |
| I DON'T ENDORSE THESE VIEWS |
The kinds of ideas feminist women come up with. (Probably because they have a horribly inaccurate model of reality.)
Why doubt? The data, for one thing. Especially what's been presented here.
I published my findings on Twitter already, man. Do I even gotta finish this blog post?
Do I Hate And Mistreat Women? The Science Finds It Unlikely:
 |
Reliable Predictors a Man Has a Longer Penis, a Handsome Face, And is Nicer To Women
|
Anyway, I'm not the one pushing for sex discrimination. Journalist and published author wants to argues for favoritism (discriminating on the basis of sex) here:
Besides, science has found that boys and girls are different. Prevailing, if not universal differences in their brains, abilities, and preferences.
How To Spot A More Manly-Brained Woman... The Evidence:
How long is the index finger relative to the index finger. Let's start by building up a female innovator profile from the evidence.
Grace Hopper Notice the Ring To Index Finger Ratio
The shorter the index finger, and the longer the ring finger, the more testosterone someone may have been exposed to in the first 14 weeks of pregnancy.
Temple Grandin:
Madam C.J. Walker  |
| Madam C.J. Walker, America's First Female Self-Made Millionaire. Even Under The Glove, There's The Sign Of A Relatively Long Ring Finger |
Mercedes Carrera
Why aren't there more women like Mercedes Carrerra? An entrepreneur with her own production studio, porn star, high sex drive, bisexual (at least in some of her movies) and a trained engineer.
Erin Pizzey
I'm told it was Erin Pizzey's idea to start the very first domestic violence shelter. Shortly after, she saw the need to open a men's domestic violence shelter.
H*nnah W*llen
One of the Founding Honey Badgers, Hannah shows some very strong evidence that she's been thinking for herself and rejecting prevailing opinions and authority since childhood, from her
accounts.
Even stronger innovation potential (high T in utero) than Anita Sarkeesian. Maybe equal to Temple Grandin and Grace Hopper
Can a man-brained woman be girly? Sure. Cassie Jaye won Best Documentary at Canne, on the subject of sex, had the balls, even as a feminist to face down the biggest, baddest, scariest Men's Rights Activist first, then applying her own independent logical reasoning to conclude that both sides had misrepresented the other, to question her own deeply-held beliefs.
Discussing these views with her team, she found that others were also changing their views, and found people on her team were able to disagree without breaking up the project. The new documentary is set to be released before the 2016 elections.
To the best of my current knowledge I would certainly go so far as to call Cassie Jaye a relatively innovative thinker, and a successful entrepreneur. And she knows all the editing shortcuts. (A little inside joke.)
So if I were to doubt whether a "feminine brain" can innovate, I'm not necessarily talking about whether or not someone is exceptionally feminine-looking. It's about their choices and thought process.
As an aside, I will point out that Cassie doesn't appear to be quite as well-informed as people who've been following the feminist-related manosphere/GamerGate issues for the past year or more. Not everyone can keep up with all the details.
Carrie Fisher
Do you think Carrie Fisher looks girly? When she's not choking Jabba, ruling the galaxy, writing Postcards From The Edge, Carrie Fisher is defying Christopher Hitchens' expectations by being genuinely funny.Some notice the cocaine fingernail.
I notice the ring to index ratio.
She's not running a Fortune 500 company, and didn't create a breakthrough computer language, but that's not the level of innovation her ring-to-index finger ratio would predict.
She leaves the hugboxes and cattle corrals to others, but impressed director George Lucas with the kind of presence, poise, and backbone he was looking for.
In short, she's man enough to lead the rebel alliance.
Just look at those incredible fingertips.
Men produce 20-40 times the testosterone that women do.
Ring finger length is determined as early as the 14th week of pregnancy.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23306974
Spacial cognitive abilities affected by testosterone, Which men are exposed to in the womb.
First!
ReplyDeleteWanted to take this opportunity to thank you for scrolling through all the pretty pictures and maybe reading the bits which interested you most. Feel free to pass this on and be sure to share your thoughts!